The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An Alternative Theory of Vacuum and Matter  (Read 3530 times)

Offline kovmiv

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
An Alternative Theory of Vacuum and Matter
« on: 08/02/2014 19:28:22 »
Einstein's Theory of Relativity and Quantum Theory both fail to explain physical phenomena outside of their own scale. The same applies to the Wave and Corpuscular theories of light.  It is easy to see a common pattern – what works on a large scale fails on a small scale and vice versa. Therefore it is possible that these theories are not taking into account a common component which changes its physical properties depending on the scale. All above conventional theories substitute this common component with a few abstract concepts such as Time, Charge, and Field. Let’s take a closer look at each one of them.
Time is not a material thing. It’s just an abstract concept convenient for dealing with moving objects or running processes. Thus we always use a time gauge of some sort to determine other object positions in its motion or state of a running process.  It’s easy to see that any time gauge we can possibly chose may change its readings depending on the environment. Does it mean that time is effected by the environment? What if different gauges change their time reading in a different way going from one environment to another? What is the right gauge in this case? If time is an illusion, does it mean that the concept of the space-time is a model based on illusion?
Historically charge was viewed as an ability of a particle to attract or repel other particles. Later mathematical quantum models added more complications to the concept of charge. We could ask ourselves the following questions. Do particles get attracted and repelled or just attracted? Can the repelling effect between two given particles be created by these particles being attracted by other particles in a shared volume? Is it possible that two particles carrying charge effect one another by mean of a third light body (the common component mentioned above) surrounding them?
Field is a way to represent force of the charge in a given volume. It’s reasonable to ask if the field is material thing. May be it is just a convenient way to mathematically describe the state of the light body carrying influence of the charged particle in the volume? Thus the light body can be stationary stretched, compressed, or be in motion relatively to the volume. All these states of the light body could be described with a concept of Field.
If Time, Charge, and Field are not material, than may be what we missing is the light body which can server as a common component? This common component was known in the past as aether. Now scientists call it dark matter. I can assume that a reader of this text might say “Hey, what about the Michelson–Morley experiment?” Please note that the above experiment had not confirmed relative motion of matter through the stationary aether but it haven’t disapproved existence of the aethrt itself.

Please read attached pdf. The theory brings back the concept of aether in a new prospective.  Aether is a basic substance which serves as a building material for all other types of matter. The theory also suggests unity in the nature of forces (including gravity), proposes an alternative look at dynamics of space and astronomical bodies, and considers aether and free electrons as factors influencing the weather. It provides answers to some unsolved problems in today’s physics by taking an alternative look at what we know about the vacuum and matter.
« Last Edit: 19/03/2014 02:07:39 by kovmiv »


 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8661
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Re: An Alternative Theory of Vacuum and Matter
« Reply #1 on: 09/02/2014 09:24:47 »
Before you bother to invent a new theory you need to explain:
1 what is wrong with the old theory (i.e. where it doesn't agree with observations)
2 why your new theory is better i.e.  why it agrees better with reality.
3 what testable predictions your theory makes.

I haven't looked at the PDF.
Does it do those three things?
If not, why would I bother to look at it?
 

Offline kovmiv

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: An Alternative Theory of Vacuum and Matter
« Reply #2 on: 09/02/2014 12:54:42 »
Hi,

Thank you for your comments. You will find most of this by reading the attachment. 
In any case let me ask you a question which might make you want to challenge existing theories… If we think that source of the Earth magnetic field is inside the planet why readings of the magnetic field are higher in the space surrounding the Earth than underground?
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8661
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Re: An Alternative Theory of Vacuum and Matter
« Reply #3 on: 09/02/2014 13:51:26 »
"why readings of the magnetic field are higher in the space surrounding the Earth than underground?"
Are they?

Do you have a reference for that?

Of course,  an obvious answer would be shielding by magnetic materials in the Earth's crust.
 

Offline kovmiv

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: An Alternative Theory of Vacuum and Matter
« Reply #4 on: 09/02/2014 14:22:57 »
Well... If source of the magnetic field inside the Earth has been shielded by the crust then why the field gets stronger passing the crust than it is in the crust?
« Last Edit: 10/02/2014 01:57:09 by kovmiv »
 

Offline Ian Scott ZL4NJ

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: An Alternative Theory of Vacuum and Matter
« Reply #5 on: 11/02/2014 20:21:46 »
I started to read the article posted by kovmiv but it unfortunately degenerated into pseudoscience rhetoric. Using phrases such as "it is reasonable to assume that..." do not sit well in any science-based assertions as appeals to our physical world experience represent poor candidates for understanding the mechanics of  physical phenomena. Equally, proposing the existence of an "aether" and then using this presumption in the discussion as fact to support the assertion represents faulty logic. From memory, didn't the Michelson-Morly experiments discount the aether proposal?

I agree with previous correspondents who point out that alternative theories should offer explanations for objective measurements not explained by conventional theories. However, it is possible that alternative theories can be equally adequate in explaining observed results as conventional ones and should not be discounted. After all, maintaining an allegiance to old and comfortably understood explanations is not good scientific philosophy. However, alternative explanations should be logical, explained coherently, not be self-referential (using presumptions as fact inside an argument for the presumption) and least be equal in efficacy wrt explaining known observations. If they can go further and explain additional outcomes not currently answered by alternative theory then all well and good - these are well worth consideration. Unfortunately, the PDF article posted achieves none of the above!

It is somewhat disappointing to find so many people with scant understanding of science - phrases such as "this has been scientifically proven", "that is 'just' a theory" and "scientists always get it wrong" all presuppose that some unrevealed "truth" exists, ready to be chiseled out like Michelangelo's "David" from marble stone. This is of course untrue - completely. Theories cannot ever be "proven" only collaborated by observation and measurement within our current framework of knowledge. As Popper would explain, theories can only be diss-proven and therefore must be falsifiable for any scientific consideration.  Theory is the highest level on an idea's achievement - what is "truth" is a defined concept belonging to religions. Science, on which our technology based society is based, progresses more pragmatically I guess - slowly, interspersed with expected common human failings, but progressing nonetheless. If we accept such tenants as these, the article on aether espoused in the PDF document doesn't make the grade :-[
« Last Edit: 11/02/2014 20:24:26 by Ian Scott ZL4NJ »
 

Offline kovmiv

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: An Alternative Theory of Vacuum and Matter
« Reply #6 on: 12/02/2014 01:41:32 »
Hi Ian,

Thank you for the feedback, much appreciated.
I do agree with you that using word ‘aether’ was not a good idea. It’s so 18th century... I would do much better using ‘dark matter’ instead.
I cannot agree with your last paragraph. It sounds to me like profiling…
I also would like to point out that Michelson-Morly’s experiment was an attempt to detect ‘relative motion of matter through the stationary luminiferous aether’. If you would finish reading pdf, you would find out that it’s not something that ‘An Alternative Theory of Vacuum and Matter’ is suggesting.
Please note that by finishing reading the pdf you also might find ‘predictions’ based on the suggested theory such as structure of the ball of lightning and magnetic field readings in desert areas.
 

Offline kovmiv

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: An Alternative Theory of Vacuum and Matter
« Reply #7 on: 01/03/2014 23:41:29 »
Both Einstein's Theory of Relativity and Quantum Theory fail to explain physical phenomena outside of their own scale. This means that both of them might be incomplete or wrong. The same applies to the Corpuscular and Wave theories of light.  It is easy to see a common pattern – what works on a large scale fails on a small scale and vice versa. So it is possible that these theories are not taking into account a common component which changes its properties depending on the scale. In the past this component was known under name aether. Today it is known as dark matter.
I can assume that a reader of this text might say “Hey, what about the Michelson–Morley experiment?” Please note that the above experiment had not detect relative motion of matter through the stationary aether but it haven’t disapproved existence of the aethrt itself.
So going back to the contradictions in the conventional theories, all of them do not consider existence of aether. They compensate this with a set of other not existing or abstract concepts such as Time, Charge, and Field.
 

Offline ScientificSorcerer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: An Alternative Theory of Vacuum and Matter
« Reply #8 on: 04/03/2014 22:47:53 »
Kovmiv

I don't know how this conversation got so off topic.  Your original theory stated that "aether" Is the same thing as dark matter. you state that "aether/darkmatter" is in fact free electrons. I agree with this because it's exactly what my theory implies.  This conversation shouldn't be about the earth's magnetic field or whatever. This conversation should be focused on pointing out why dark matter theory are wrong based on observations and explaining why dark matter is electrons.

Let me do the honors of pointing out the flaws of dark matter theory.  Scientists don't actually know what dark matter is, but they say it's something which is invisible and that it has mass and gravity but other then that dark matter is an enigma. Scientists may not know what it is but they know it's there through the use of "gravitational lensing" when you look at dark matter with gravitational lensing you'll get an image that looks a bit like this.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/1e0657_scale.jpg

The colored area represents dark matter and those dots that look like stars are actually galaxies. This "Dark matter cloud" is very large and very loosely spread out.

Now here is were the observations become different from theory. Both regular matter and dark matter have one thing in common, gravity but in regular matter gravity causes matter to take the shape of galaxies. BUT THAT'S NOT TRUE WITH DARK MATTER If dark matter is just something with gravity why hasn't it formed dark matter galaxies like regular matter? Why is dark matter in the form of massive clouds?
Some other force must be involved! perhaphs this other force is negative charge like Kovmiv implies.

If Kovmiv is correct in saying that dark matter is free electrons then that would make sense because of the way free electrons behave.

1, free electrons are invisible (just look at an electric field it's invisible) the only way for an electron to emit light is when it orbits an atom

2, free electrons have gravity, that's why you can detect it with gravitational lensing.

3, free electrons repel each other making them spaced far away from each other yet gravity pulls the electrons together keeping the electrons   from flying off in all directions, allowing for a far spaced cloud to form.

4, the electric field of dark matter is attracted to positive and neutral atoms which is why dark matter likes to consentrate around galaxies

5, the electrons - charge atoms attracting those atoms to neutral or positive atoms via electric field attraction. this attraction force is mistaken for gravity.



Where did the electrons come from? the answer is fusion in the stars, when two atoms fuse together energy is released from the nucleus. that energy release triggers a loss of mass expressed by the famous E=mc2 and the law of conservation. this means that mass is being lost from protons because the nucleus of hydrogen is just 1 proton thus protons are being lost. and if the big bang created equal numbers of protons and electrons then the loss of protons in stars would mean that there is a miss-match between protons and electrons. and the universe has more electrons then protons meaning that large numbers of free electrons is possible.

you can run 2 experiments to prove this.

One make a positron and collide it with an electron converting both the electron anp positron into energy you have just made a miss-match between protons and electrons by destroying an electron and not a proton,

Two positively charge an object in space which is protected by solar winds and other factors except for free electrons (dark matter) and see if the positive charge is lost, if charge is lost without any other cause then that means that dark matter is free electrons.
« Last Edit: 04/03/2014 23:03:42 by ScientificSorcerer »
 

Offline kovmiv

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: An Alternative Theory of Vacuum and Matter
« Reply #9 on: 06/03/2014 02:53:11 »
Hi ScientificSorcerer,
Thank you for your feedback.
I can’t state that aether(dark matter) is comprised with electrons but electrons definitely are impacted by presence of aether. This influence manifests itself in the phenomenon of electrical induction.
Gravity is aether pressure inside the aether vortex (galaxy). Common matter in the form of elementary particles does not have any gravity. It just gets collected in the volume with the highest aether pressure in the vortex.
Presence of the elementary particles and nuclei in the volume of aether creates a cohesive effect in this volume. It gets impacted with cosmic wind (aether winds) and thus forms vortex or galaxy
Regards
 

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Re: An Alternative Theory of Vacuum and Matter
« Reply #10 on: 06/03/2014 15:05:56 »
I hate to disagree with you guys, but it has been proven that the dark matter has no charge if it was comprising electrons there'd a charge. Just food for thought in the beginning of the universe. There were 6 types of quarks created, two are used, the up quark and the down quark are used in protons and neutrons, the other 4 do not appear to be used if they combined in some other combination that is a possibility for dark matter. Also like the neutron which deteriorates into a proton dark matter may deteriorate into dark energy over time. In the beginning of the universe. Dark matter was the most massive thing in the universe. Now dark energy is so I wonder if dark matter didn't deteriorate into dark energy. Which would account for the  changing  of the expansion rate of the universe.
 

Offline kovmiv

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: An Alternative Theory of Vacuum and Matter
« Reply #11 on: 20/03/2014 00:08:22 »
Hi Alan,

Thank you for your comment.
The truth is the theory does not state that dark matter (aether) consists of electrons. It is the basic substance which which is the building material foe all the rest of known kinds of matter. Please read the attachment for more details.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An Alternative Theory of Vacuum and Matter
« Reply #11 on: 20/03/2014 00:08:22 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length